Cited by 2HIV Research and TreatmentImmunotherapy and Immune Responsesvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches

Non-immunogenicity of overlapping Gag peptides pulsed on autologous cells after vaccination of HIV infected individuals

Open access
Kløverpris, Henrik N., Jackson, Akil, Handley, Amanda, Hayes, Peter, Gilmour, Jill, Riddell, Lynn, Chen, Fabian, Atkins, Mark +5 more·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: HIV Gag-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses are important for HIV immune control. Pulsing overlapping Gag peptides on autologous lymphocytes (OPAL) has proven immunogenic and effective in reducing viral loads in multiple pigtail macaque studies, warranting clinical evaluation. METHODOLOGY: We performed a phase I, single centre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded and dose-escalating study to evaluate the safety and preliminary immunogenicity of a novel therapeutic vaccine approach 'OPAL-HIV-Gag(c)'. This vaccine is comprised of 120 15mer peptides, overlapping by 11 amino acids, spanning the HIV Gag C clade sequence proteome, pulsed on white blood cells enriched from whole blood using a closed system, followed by intravenous reinfusion. Patients with undetectable HIV viral loads (<50 copies/ml plasma) on HAART received four administrations at week 0, 4, 8 and 12, and were followed up for 12 weeks post-treatment. Twenty-three people were enrolled in four groups: 12 mg (n = 6), 24 mg (n = 7), 48 mg (n = 2) or matching placebo (n = 8) with 18 immunologically evaluable. T-cell immunogenicity was assessed by IFNγ ELIspot and intracellular cytokine staining (ICS). RESULTS: The OPAL-HIV-Gag(c) peptides were antigenic in vitro in 17/17 subjects. After vaccination with OPAL-HIV-Gag(c), 1/6 subjects at 12 mg and 1/6 subjects at 24 mg dose groups had a 2- and 3-fold increase in ELIspot magnitudes from baseline, respectively, of Gag-specific CD8+ T-cells at week 14, compared to 0/6 subjects in the placebo group. No Gag-specific CD4+ T-cell responses or overall change in Rev, Nef, Tat and CMV specific responses were detected. Marked, transient and self-limiting lymphopenia was observed immediately post-vaccination (4 hours) in OPAL-HIV-Gag(c) but not in placebo recipients, with median fall from 1.72 to 0.67 million lymphocytes/mL for active groups (P<0.001), compared to post-placebo from 1.70 to 1.56 lymphocytes/ml (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Despite strong immunogenicity observed in several Macaca nemestrina studies using this approach, OPAL-HIV-Gag(c) was not significantly immunogenic in humans and improved methods of generating high-frequency Gag-specific T-cell responses are required. NAME OF REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov, Registry number: NCT01123915, URL trial registry database: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=OPAL-HIV-1001&Search=Search.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0074389

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The transient lymphopenia changes were not considered to represent toxicity but rather redistribution of lymphocytes due to the vaccine's mode of action, as has been observed for other vaccines.

    “These transient changes were not considered to represent toxicity but rather redistribution of lymphocytes due to the vaccine’s mode of action as has been observed for other vaccines [12], [13].”

    From Proof-of-concept of a low-dose unmodified mRNA-based rabies vaccine formulated with lipid nanoparticles in human volunteers: A phase 1 trial (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results section reports transient lymphopenia after OPAL-HIV-Gag(c) vaccination, and the Discussion says the rapid recovery suggests redistribution of lymphocytes. The paper presents redistribution as an inference, not an established mechanism; the passages do not explicitly classify the changes as non-toxic or say they were observed with other vaccines. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rabies virus-specific serum neutralizing titers were measured using the WHO-recommended rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) at the accredited Kansas State University Rabies Laboratory.

    “Rabies virus-specific serum neutralizing titers (VNT) were measured using the WHO-recommended rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) [13] at the accredited Kansas State University Rabies Laboratory.”

    From Proof-of-concept of a low-dose unmodified mRNA-based rabies vaccine formulated with lipid nanoparticles in human volunteers: A phase 1 trial (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Methods sections describe HIV Gag-specific IFNγ ELIspot and intracellular cytokine staining assays, not rabies-virus neutralization testing. Searches for RFFIT, rabies neutralizing titers, WHO guidance, and the Kansas State University Rabies Laboratory found no passage addressing the cited method. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kløverpris, H. N., Jackson, A., Handley, A., Hayes, P., Gilmour, J., Riddell, L., Chen, F., Atkins, M., Boffito, M., Walker, B. D., Ackland, J., Sullivan, M., & Goulder, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • Royal Berkshire Hospital (GB)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Kløverpris, Henrik N.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-10-04
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
e74389
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171833910
Cited by
2
References
44
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Virology › HIV Research and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Keywords
HIV infection, CD8+ T cell responses, CD4+ T cell responses, vaccine immunogenicity, vaccine safety, lymphopenia, viral load, highly active antiretroviral therapy, dose escalation, interferon-gamma
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interferon-gamma, Male, Middle Aged, CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes, HIV Infections, AIDS Vaccines, CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review